Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making
process for English Language Learners: Child study team meetings and staffings. Teachers
College Record 108, 2247-2281. Posted with permission of the publisher.
The Special Education Referral and
Decision-Making Process for English
Language Learners: Child Study Team
Meetings and Placement Conferences
JANETTE K. KLINGNER
University of Colorado at Boulder
BETH HARRY
University of Miami
The purpose of this study was to examine the special education referral and decisionmaking process for English language learners (ELLs), with a focus on Child Study
Team (CST) meetings and placement conferences/multidisciplinary team meetings. We
wished to learn how school personnel determined if ELLs who were struggling had
disabilities, to what extent those involved in the process understood second language
acquisition, and whether language issues were considered when determining special
education eligibility. We observed CST meetings and placement conferences for
19 students who were considered ELLs when they were referred. Findings revealed that
in practice, only cursory attention was given to prereferral strategies. Most students
were pushed toward testing, based on an assumption that poor academic performance
or behavioral difficulties had their origin within the child and indicated a need for
special education. Although some school personnel were quite knowledgeable about
language issues, many were not. There was tremendous variation in the quality of
what transpired during meetings. These differences were influenced by the intentions,
knowledge, skills, and commitment of CST or multidisciplinary team members. All the
factors we describe point to aspects of the process that should be improved.
How is it determined whether English language learners (ELLs) who
struggle with reading have learning disabilities? What is the decisionmaking process? To what extent do the educators involved understand
second language acquisition? What consideration is given to language issues? In this article, we explore these questions, focusing on what happens
during Child Study Team (CST) meetings (also called Student Study Teams,
Teachers College Record Volume 108, Number 11, November 2006, pp. 2247–2281
Copyright r by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
2248
Teachers College Record
Student Support Teams, and other names) and placement conferences (also
called multidisciplinary team meetings, M-teams, staffings, or individualized educational plan [IEP] meetings).
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND
LEARNING DISABILITIES
Differentiating between normal second language acquisition and learning
disabilities presents many challenges (Gonzalez, Brusca-Vega, & Yawkey,
1997; Ortiz, 1997). One challenge is that the field has not yet developed a
test of language proficiency that can adequately determine when a child
with a primary language other than English is ready to be tested in only
English (Figueroa, 1989; Ortiz, 1997). Students appear to be proficient in
English long before they have fully developed cognitive academic language
proficiency (Cummins, 1984). Students’ apparent English fluency seems to
have the effect of masking the need for a native language assessment and
lulling educators into thinking they are justified in focusing on English test
results. For example, Ochoa, Rivera, and Powell (1997) surveyed 859 school
psychologists who had some experience conducting bilingual assessments
and found that only 6% of the psychologists reported asking for the students’ home language, and just 1% attempted to determine if a discrepancy
occurred in both English and the student’s home language.
A related challenge is that educators often misinterpret ELLs’ lack of full
proficiency in English as low intelligence (Oller, 1991) or as a language or
learning disability (Langdon, 1989). It is quite difficult to determine an
ELL’s true learning potential using standardized intelligence testing procedures. If a child has been transitioned prematurely from a bilingual
program or English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) program to an
English-only classroom, this can have a negative impact on achievement and
depress IQ test scores. Even children who demonstrate full English proficiency on language assessment measures still typically demonstrate a low
verbal IQ and high performance IQ profile when their intelligence is tested
(Figueroa, 1990). ‘‘Every test given in English becomes, in part, a language
or literacy test’’ (American Educational Research Association, 1985, p. 73).
An additional challenge, closely related to the others, is an overreliance
on IQ test scores when making eligibility decisions and too little consideration for other factors that may be affecting a student’s performance. An
overemphasis on IQ test scores can lead to inaccurate decisions about bilingual students’ abilities and needs, particularly for students who come
from homes where their native language is spoken (Valdés & Figueroa,
1994). Low achievement is too often blamed on low IQ without looking
further at the context in which underachievement occurs (Trueba, 1989).
Now that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) has
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2249
been reauthorized, states have the option of discontinuing the use of IQachievement discrepancy formulas and using response to intervention
(RTI) criteria as part of the special education identification process. This
change has dramatic implications for ELLs (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004)
and the special education referral process. Ideally, RTI models will decrease
the number of ELLs who are inappropriately referred to and placed in
special education by providing them with support and quality instruction
within general education before they underachieve (Donovan & Cross, 2002,
Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).
Although there is some variation in RTI models, the first tier is generally
considered to be quality instruction and ongoing progress monitoring
within the general education classroom. Students who do not make adequate progress are identified early and then receive intensive intervention
support as part of a second tier. Although not considered a ‘‘prereferral
strategy’’ per se, the purpose is similar. When students do not adequately
respond to the second tier of intervention, they either qualify for special
education or for an evaluation for possible placement in special education
(Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Yet, as with earlier identification
processes, this model can only work if students receive an adequate ‘‘opportunity to learn’’ (Klingner & Edwards, 2006). This concept of adequate
opportunity to learn is a fundamental aspect of the definition of learning
disabilities as part of its exclusionary clause; when a child has not had
sufficient opportunity to learn, the determination cannot be made that she
has a learning disability. Thus, we must ensure that children have received
culturally responsive, appropriate, quality instruction within the first and
second tiers before a special education referral or placement is made.
The decision that a child has in fact received an adequate opportunity to
learn cannot be made without looking in the child’s classroom, yet it is not
clear how often this is done. In an ethnographic study of the referral processes in 12 schools, Harry and Klingner (2005) found that school personnel gave little weight to classroom ecology when making decisions about
special education eligibility and placement. Though many children were
referred by teachers with weak instructional and classroom management
skills, no classroom observations were conducted by the evaluating psychologist or anyone else. Without classroom observations, it is difficult to know
if a child has had adequate opportunity to learn in an appropriate, culturally responsive environment.
THE SPECIAL EDUCATION REFERRAL PROCESS
Typically, the process begins when the classroom teacher becomes concerned
about a student’s lack of academic progress, behavior, or both, and initiates a
referral (Algozzine, Christenson, & Ysseldyke, 1982; Ysseldyke, 2001). The
2250
Teachers College Record
first step is usually for the teacher to discuss the child with her colleagues at a
school-level prereferral meeting consisting of administrators, other general
education teachers, a special education teacher, a parent or caregiver, and
perhaps a counselor, psychologist, or social worker. In the schools in which
we conducted our research, this team was called the Child Study Team
(CST).1 At this meeting, team members are supposed to suggest strategies
for the teacher to try to help the student, although in cases considered
severe, the team may decide to immediately initiate a referral for a formal
evaluation for possible special education placement. According to the written
guidelines in the district in which we conducted our research, the child is
supposed to be monitored and then a second CST meeting held, at which
time a decision might be made to refer the child for a formal evaluation.
Algozzine and colleagues found that approximately 90% of students referred
to the CST were tested. Once the evaluation is complete and a report has
been written, a placement conference (also called a multidisciplinary team
meeting, IEP meeting, or staffing) is held. This meeting is generally attended
by the psychologist, a district-level staffing specialist, a school-level administrator, the student’s general education teacher, sometimes a special education teacher, the parent, sometimes a counselor or social worker or other
support person, and sometimes the student. At this point, a decision is made
as to whether the child qualifies for special education services. Gottlieb, Alter,
Gottlieb, Wishner, and Yoshida (1990) estimated the number of students
who qualify to be about 90%; Algozzine et al. found that 73%–90% of the
students in their sample were determined to be eligible for special education.
When the child is an ELL, this process is much more complicated. In the
district in which we conducted our research, a limited-English-proficient
student2 (LEP) committee presumably became involved and reviewed a
case before it was brought to a CST. In addition, a bilingual assessor evaluated the student to determine if he or she was ready to be tested only in
English or should be assessed bilingually. See Figure 1 for a visual portrayal
of this process.
Prereferral Strategies
Though Ortiz and colleagues (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Ortiz & Yates, 2001)
have achieved some success teaching school personnel how to use prereferral intervention strategies as a way to reduce inappropriate special education referrals, others have found that prereferral strategies are
implemented sporadically or with little effect (Carrasquillo & Rodriguez,
1997; Rock & Zigmond, 2001). The purpose of prereferral strategies is to
provide students with assistance within the general education environment
before an official request is made for an evaluation for possible special
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
General 1
Education
-Teacher concerned
about student
-Refers student to CST
-LEP Committee for
ELLs
2
General
Education
1st CST
-Prereferral
strategies
-Student
monitored
Referral Process
2nd CST
-Decision to refer for
a formal evaluation
-ELLs referred to 3
Bilingual Assessor
2251
Staffing
-Special education?
-LRE?
5
-Parental
involvement?
-Language &
culture?
Assessment
-Instruments
-Personnel
-Settings
4
-Language &
culture?
Figure 1. The Special Education Referral Process
education placement. The expectation is that by adjusting the way children
are taught, some students will make enough progress that a special education referral will not be necessary. In their investigation of the schooling
characteristics of 46 Hispanic ELLs referred to or participating in bilingual
special education in New York City, Carrasquillo and Rodriguez found that
few prereferral interventions had been tried with students prior to their
placement. Rock and Zigmond noted that the intervention assistance
process did not significantly change educational outcomes for the 140 lowperforming students in the nine urban elementary schools in their study.
Although not with ELLs, Flugum and Reschly (1994) applied a set of quality
indicators to evaluate the prereferral interventions used with 312 students.
They found that the majority of prereferral interventions were deficient in
one or more ways, and that higher-quality interventions were associated
with more positive student outcomes.
CST Meetings and Placement Conferences
In the 1980s, researchers conducted several investigations of CST meetings
and placement conferences. They studied the decision-making process and
characterized meetings as fraught with challenges (Brey, Coleman, & Gotts,
2252
Teachers College Record
1981; Kaiser & Woodman, 1985; Mehan, Hartwick, & Meihls, 1986; Moore,
Fifield, Spira, & Scarlato, 1989; Pfeiffer, 1982; Trailor, 1982; Yoshida, 1980;
Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Richey, & Graden, 1982). Large teams with poorly
defined organizational structures did not seem to be effective at making
decisions and tended to ‘‘rubber stamp’’ decisions made by one or two team
members (Moore et al.). Pfeiffer noted the following four problematic areas:
(1) parents and teachers appeared to be less involved in the process than
intended by P. L. 94–1423; (2) teams seemed to vary tremendously in the
types of information that they collected and analyzed; (3) data did not indicate that bringing a team together ensured the most appropriate decisions; and (4) data did not indicate that multidisciplinary teams facilitated
collaboration and trust or reduced professional rivalry. One problem particularly relevant to this current study is the practice of concentrating on
problems from a ‘‘within-child’’ perspective. ‘‘This viewpoint does not allow
the CST to develop plans for dealing with larger situational and environmental factors in the analysis of referral problems’’ (Moore et al., p. 51).
Mehan et al. (1986) focused on how team decisions were made and concluded that ‘‘placement outcomes were more ratifications of actions that
had taken place at previous stages of the decision-making process than
decisions reached in formal meetings’’ (p. 164). Mehan and his colleagues
emphasized that this process need not be interpreted as a conspiracy, but
rather as a ‘‘culmination, a formalization, of a lengthy process that originates in the classroom . . . when the teacher makes the first referral’’
(p. 165). Mehan et al. argued that there is more to this process than simply
reflecting students’ measured abilities or their background characteristics.
Rather, the process must be understood at both micro and macro levels,
taking into account the entire institutional context within which decisions
about individual children’s identities are made.
Ysseldyke et al. (1982) videotaped 20 placement team meetings and analyzed the decision-making process. Similar to Mehan and colleagues, they
found that decisions about students seemed to have been made ahead of time
based on other factors than test data. They noted, ‘‘Considerable evidence is
accumulating to suggest that the extensive amount of information collected
about students . . . has little influence on actual decisions. In fact, it looks as if
decision makers use assessment data to support or justify decisions that are
made independent of the data’’ (p. 42). Ysseldyke and his coresearchers
noted many instances in which identical data were used to support different
outcome decisions and asserted that classification decisions seemed to be
more a function of certain student characteristics—for example, gender,
socioeconomic level, or physical appearance—than pupil performance data.
More recently, Gutkin and Nemeth (1997) examined factors that influenced the quality of the decision-making process in prereferral and other
school-based teams. As in studies conducted more than a decade earlier,
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2253
they noted that decisions were frequently made without achieving consensus and that it was common for some members to feel threatened by others
on the team whom they perceived to have more power. Gutkin and Nemeth
suggested that teams establish measurable outcome criteria with which to
judge the quality of their meetings. They offered several recommendations
to help school psychologists improve group dynamics, such as being consistent, maintaining a flexible style of negotiation so as not to be perceived
as rigid, and fostering creative problem solving by encouraging diverse
points of view.
Other researchers have also recommended ways to enhance the decisionmaking process (Abelson & Woodman, 1983; Kaiser & Woodman, 1985;
Trailor, 1982). Abelson and Woodman discussed implications of research on
group effectiveness for school multidisciplinary teams, and described a
process model of team building that they believed could improve team
decision making. Kaiser and Woodman suggested that multidisciplinary
teams need more structure and offered a model for achieving this. Trailor
worked with teachers to increase their involvement in team meetings.
The Roles of Team Members
The preeminent role of the psychologist in the decision-making process is
well documented (Frankenberger & Harper, 1988; Knoff, 1983; Mehan,
1991; Mehan et al., 1986). Frankenberger and Harper asked 235 multidisciplinary team participants to rate the importance of each team member’s
contributions during multidisciplinary team meetings. Psychologists were
considered the most influential. Similarly, Knoff asked 20 school psychologists and 20 special educators to rate the influence of various professionals
and parents on child placement decisions during multidisciplinary child
study team meetings and found that school psychologists were perceived to
be the most influential and as having disproportionate influence on placement decisions. Mehan and colleagues (1986) noted that the predominant
influence of psychologists could be seen in the hierarchical order and style
of presentation of reports in placement conferences, in which the psychologists’ always came first and were presented in a formal style that precluded interruption or questioning.
By contrast, other team members have less influence. Although the responses to Knoff ’s (1983) and Frankenberger and Harper’s (1988) scales
differed somewhat, respondents agreed that special education teachers
have more influence than parents and more than general education teachers (including the referring teacher). Those with the least influence were
guidance counselors, social workers (Frankenberger & Harper) medical
personnel, and the parent of a handicapped child (Knoff). Classroom
2254
Teachers College Record
teachers do not always attend, but when they do, they generally assume a
passive role (Trailor, 1982). Trailor found that ‘‘other team members considered classroom teachers as unimportant’’ (p. 530).
Most parents do not actively participate in meetings, instead spending
most of their time listening to professionals. A number of factors seem to
limit parental participation: (1) parents may lack information about the IEP
process or the school system; (2) professionals may have limited skills in
consulting with parents; (3) parents may feel intimidated; (4) logistical problems such as a lack of transportation or need for babysitting may make it
hard for parents to attend meetings; and (5) communication may be limited
by linguistic and cultural differences or the use of jargon (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1986). Studies focusing on the participation of Puerto Rican and African
American parents show that different ethnicity and low socioeconomic status
exacerbate these patterns (Harry, 1992; Harry, Allen, & McLaughlin, 1995).
In summary, although on paper the special education referral process
includes many checks and balances designed to ensure that the process is
fair and valid for culturally and linguistically diverse students, as implemented, it seems to be fraught with challenges. Yet many of the investigations of CST and placement conferences were conducted in the 1980s and
early 1990s, before the reauthorizations of IDEA in 1990, 1997, and 2004,
with their additional regulations regarding referrals, multidisciplinary team
meetings, and assessment procedures. In addition, much of the research
has not focused on ELLs. In this study, we address these gaps in the literature by describing current-day practices in diverse schools.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to examine the special education referral and
decision-making process for ELLs, with a particular focus on CST meetings
and placement conferences. We wished to learn how school personnel determined if ELLs who were struggling with reading had learning disabilities. We wondered to what extent those involved in the process understood
second language acquisition and to what extent consideration was given to
language issues. We were interested in the roles of various team members
and how decisions were made. We also wanted to find out more about the
interactions among professionals and parents.
METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
The data for this study are from a large 3-year ethnographic study of
the decision-making processes that result in the overrepresentation of
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2255
culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education in a major
urban school district in a southern state. School populations included students of African American, European American, Hispanic (predominantly
from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Mexico), Haitian American, and Jamaican
American ethnicities.
STRATEGY OF INQUIRY
We employed a qualitative design and used ethnographic techniques to
capture the dynamic nature of the decision-making processes through
which students were determined to be in need of special education placement. Our theoretical orientation was that of grounded theory, with the aim
of developing explanations of the data through an inductive analytic process. Our overall approach was therefore open-ended, with a view to
understanding the perspectives of school personnel while also developing
our own interpretations of the phenomena being studied. Our approach to
this investigation was similar to that of Mehan and colleagues (1986) in that
we used ethnographic data collection techniques to study the entire referral
process to understand how and why students were placed in special education programs.
ROLES OF THE RESEARCHERS
Both of the principal researchers were special education teachers before
obtaining doctorates and becoming researchers. The first author was a bilingual special education teacher for 10 years, including one year in the
school district in which this research was conducted. As a member of a
districtwide bilingual assessment team, her responsibilities included sitting
in on CST meetings and placement conferences when the target student
was an ELL to monitor the decision-making process and to offer expertise
regarding disability and language acquisition issues. She had received extensive preparation for this role. The second author, who has been the
parent of a child with a disability, had conducted three previous ethnographic studies with diverse populations, which focused on parentprofessional communication in IEP and placement conferences. Based on
these experiences and on extensive knowledge of the literature regarding
such interactions, we both held preconceived ideas about what ideal special
education conferences should look like.
Particularly because we were knowledgeable about the practices and
processes we were observing, as researchers we faced ethical dilemmas. We
knew how to provide assistance, yet we did not want to overly influence or
affect the interactions that we witnessed. For the most part, we remained
silent, but there were a few exceptions to this. For example, one of us
2256
Teachers College Record
observed a child’s placement conference at which she was the only person
other than the assistant principal to have also attended the child’s CST
meeting. When the new psychologist informed the team that the student
had never received speech and language therapy and the researcher knew
that he had and that this was relevant information, she opted to share this
information. We also experienced role conflict in our relationships with
parents who perceived that we could somehow help them, and that we
would serve as advocates for them and their children and act as intermediaries with the school system. We always felt a bit as though we were tightrope walking in these situations.
SAMPLING
For the larger study for which these data were collected, we purposively
selected 12 schools to represent a range in ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
language, and schools’ rates of referral. For this study on ELLs, data were
drawn from a subset of 9 of these schools (see Table 1 for more demographic information). Three schools were not included because the CST
meetings or placement conferences we observed there were not for ELLs.
The language support programs across these schools varied. Only one
school had a dual immersion program, in which all students participated in
Spanish instruction for half of the school day and English instruction for the
Table 1. School Demographics
Ethnicity of Students
School
W
B
H
Free or
Reduced
Lunch
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01
01
0
1
9
6
2
1
2
91
87
98
01
1
11
77
69
55
8
11
2
98
88
82
20
30
43
98
99
97
89
71
87
99
99
99
% ELL
% EMH
39
26
1
47
26
46
12
16
29
0.2
0.1
8.0
% EBD
0.2
0.1
1.1
1.9
0.1
0.1
% LD
3.0
5.7
13.4
5.9
5.6
4.2
6.0
4.4
3.8
Note: W 5 White; B 5 Black (used to refer to African American students and those
from Haiti, Jamaica, and other Caribbean countries); H 5 Hispanic (the term generally preferred in this region for individuals from Cuba and other Caribbean
countries, Mexico, Central America, and South America); ELL 5 English language
learners not yet considered fluent in English (referred to as limited English proficient by the district); EMH 5 educable mental handicaps; EBD 5 emotional and
behavior disorders (referred to as emotionally handicapped in this district);
LD 5 learning disabilities.
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2257
other half. Other schools offered a combination of pull-out ESOL, curriculum content in the home language, and home language arts classes. In
many cases in which the classroom teacher was certified in teaching English
to speakers of other languages, students were not pulled for this support
but received it within their homeroom.
We observed the CST meetings and placement conferences for 19 students who were considered ELLs when they were referred, a total of
21 meetings. Students’ grade levels ranged from kindergarten through
fifth grade: 2 were in kindergarten, 4 in first grade, 2 in second grade,
9 in third grade, 1 in fourth grade, and 1 in fifth grade. Eleven students
were Hispanic and spoke Spanish as their first language, 6 were Haitian
and spoke Haitian Creole, and 1 was Middle Eastern and spoke Arabic.
Their levels of English proficiency (referred to in this district as their ESOL
level) ranged from 1 (just beginning to acquire English) to 5 (considered at
least moderately proficient in English and no longer in an ESOL program;
see Table 2).
DATA SOURCES
We collected a great deal of data regarding the CST process. Our primary
data source for this study was observation, though we also conducted
interviews and examined documents. Although we collected data over a
3-year period for the larger project, most of the data for this ELL study
were collected in about 1 1/2 years.
Observations
We collected extensive field notes during observations of CST meetings and
multidisciplinary team meetings/placement conferences. We observed a
total of 55 such meetings, but only 21 of these for students considered to be
ELLs. It is the notes from these 21 observations that constitute the primary
data source for this article. Whenever we observed a CST or multidisciplinary team meeting, we observed the entire meeting. Meetings lasted anywhere from 5 minutes to more than an hour. The two authors of this article
conducted all the CST meeting and placement conference observations for
ELLs except two. One placement conference was observed by a bilingual
research assistant and another by our project coordinator, who was also a
lead researcher on the project.
Our larger data set included 627 classroom observations (627), as well as
observations of other meetings (14), psychological evaluations (5), and
home and community settings relevant to target students (15). Classroom
observations took place for a minimum of 30 minutes and sometimes lasted
as long as 2 hours or more. Usually only one researcher was present for an
4
4
3
Hispanic 3rd
Reina (2) Hispanic/ 3rd
Puerto
Rico
Hispanic K
Hispanic 2nd
Hispanic/ 2nd
Puerto
Rico
Hispanic 1st
Hispanic 3rd
Rex
Paul (2)
Pablo
Oscar
Monica
Marcos
4
?
2
3
Ethnicity/
ESOL
Country Grade Level
Student
Academics
Academics
Academics
Academics
Behavior
only
Academics
Academics
and behavior
Referral
Reason
LD
Outcome
1st CST
1st CST
1st CST
1st CST
Evaluation
Strategies, Evaluation
Refer for counseling
Bilingual assessment,
Evaluation
2nd CST 2nd CST: Evaluation;
& Staffing Staffing: LD
1st CST
At CST: Evaluation;
& Staffing At staffing: EMH
Staffing
Type of
Meeting
Table 2. Students Observed in CST Meetings or Placement Conferences
Notable
Tested in both English and Spanish,
but only English scores discussed,
included in evaluation report.
CST meeting lasted 5 minutes—
’’The mother is retarded and
wouldn’t have understood anyway.’’
All testing done in English; no
mention of ESOL at staffing.
No discussion of Paul being ESOL
at staffing.
Achievement scores higher than IQ.
Qualifies with ‘‘auditory processing
deficits.’’
Good discussion of language issues.
Example of a meeting where they
switched to English and didn’t
translate for parent.
Psychologist says, ‘‘He can’t be
referred until he’s ESOL level 4 . . .
they won’t accept it.’’
Teacher did not consider student’s
Spanish skills.
Mother says she is confused
between 2 languages; apparently
not referred for a bilingual
assessment.
Unprofessional conversations in
English between principal and
teacher in front of parent.
2258
Teachers College Record
Hispanic/ K
Cuba
Haitian
Haitian
Haitian
Haitian
Middle
Eastern
Hispanic 1st
Laura
Joseph
Jean
James
Jacques
Hamid
Elfigo
3rd
3rd
1st
3rd
3rd
Hispanic 5th
Lucio
3
4
3
1
3
3
1
4
Staffing
1st CST
1st CST
Staffing
Academics
Academics
Academics
1st CST
1st CST
1st CST
Academics and 1st CST
behavior
Academics
Academics
Academics
Behavior and
academics
Meeting rescheduled
Monitor, Bilingual
assessment
Meeting rescheduled
Evaluation
More testing (for
possible EMH)
Bilingual assessment,
Evaluation
Bilingual assessment,
Evaluation
EH (SED considered)
Most of discussion focused on
behavior.
Translations during meeting
sporadic.
Referred from a bilingual class,
compared with other ESOL level
1 students.
All forms are only in English, not
translated.
Family’s roof was just blown off.
Teacher tells translator to tell the
father that homework is important,
like the roof.
Haitian psychologist recommended
LD; staffing specialist ‘‘doesn’t trust
this’’ so recommends more testing
for possible EMH.
Inadequate understanding of ESOL
issues.
Only sporadic translation at
meeting.
No discussion of native language
skills.
Teacher speaks in belittling way
about mother, mimics her.
Psychologist argues for a bilingual
assessment, saying, ‘‘He could be
caught between two languages.’’
Good discussion of language
issues—He has ‘‘poor
comprehension, poor oral
communication, doesn’t retain
information’’ in Spanish and
English.
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2259
Hispanic 3rd
Haitian
Hispanic/ 4th
Puerto
Rico
Carlos
Ben
Arturo
?
2
Type of
Meeting
Academics
Academics
Staffing
Staffing
Academics and 2nd CST
behavior
Academics and 1st CST
behavior
Referral
Reason
Notable
Strategies, Bilingual
Teacher told to ‘‘pick the most basic
assessment, Evaluation
alternative strategies on the list.’’
Confusion by AP about difference
between bilingual assessor and
bilingual psychologist.
Bilingual assessment,
Parent not present.
Evaluation
Good discussion re: language issues.
Knowledgeable psychologist.
EMH
Disagreement about whether Ben
should receive pull-out support in
Haitian Creole when in EMH.
LD
Teacher says he does not follow
directions.
No mention of ESOL level or
language issues as a possible
explanation.
Outcome
Note: ESOL 5 ESOL level at time of initial referral. Marcos, Reina, and Lucio were exited to level 5 between the time of the initial
referral and their CST meeting or placement conference. ESOL levels were not provided for Monica or Arturo. Staffing 5 placement conference.
3rd
4
1
Haitian
Claude
1st
Ethnicity/
ESOL
Country Grade Level
Student
Table 2. (Continued)
2260
Teachers College Record
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2261
observation. However, occasionally two researchers conducted an observation together, each taking notes separately and comparing them later.
Field notes were written using procedures described by LeCompte and
Preissle (1993) and included observer comments (Wolcott, 1995). Wolcott
noted that observer comments, or reflections, can help the researcher recapture detail and provide a ‘‘critical bridge’’ between what the researcher
has experienced and how that experience is translated into a form in which
it can be communicated to others.
Interviews
For the larger project, we conducted 272 open-ended or semistructured individual interviews with students, parents, and school-based and district personnel, and additional 84 informal conversations. Our first set of interviews was
conducted with each of the district’s six regional special education directors. We
asked questions about the referral and placement process and which schools
the director had concerns about or thought were positive examples of practice.
Later in the project, we also interviewed other district personnel, such as
bilingual assessors, psychologists, and staffing specialists, and the administrator
responsible for bilingual special education. In each case, we asked about their
roles and responsibilities, and their perceptions of the referral process. Once we
had selected our 12 schools, we interviewed the principal, assistant principal(s),
counselor(s), and other key personnel at each school (such as community
liaisons, social workers, and reading leaders). We asked questions about the
referral process generally and about CST and multidisciplinary team meetings
specifically. Whenever applicable, we asked about procedures for ELL students.
Documents
We examined documents such as IEPs, psychological and other evaluations
and reports, students’ test protocols and work samples, school district
guidelines and policies, and extant data on special education placement in
the school district.
DATA ANALYSIS
We applied grounded theory and ethnographic techniques to develop theory inductively using the constant comparison procedure (Glaser & Strauss,
1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The recursive nature of the constant comparison method allowed each phase of data collection and analysis to feed
into the next. As it was collected, all data were entered into the ATLAS.ti
database. Once data were entered, they were segmented through coding
and ‘‘chunking’’ quotes or important pieces of text according to similar
2262
Teachers College Record
patterns. These categories provided simple descriptive codes. After all
meaningful data were categorized, finer levels of coding were applied. This
process was recursive and continued throughout the project. We clustered
codes into related, overarching categories and moved to the interpretation
of themes that cut across categories and pointed to tentative explanations of
the data. These explanations were designed to identify common factors
across cases. As explanations emerged, we collected additional data and
investigated further cases to test each. We continued to look for disconfirming evidence, and it was only when new data confirmed these tentative
explanations that we concluded that they had some validity (though this can
never by known with absolute certainty). For a detailed description of our
data analysis procedures, see Harry, Sturges, and Klingner (2005).
FINDINGS
Though we noted variability across schools, our data yielded some clear
patterns regarding CST and multidisciplinary teams and the referral process for ELLs. We discuss issues related to differentiating between English
language acquisition and learning disabilities, including not knowing when
a child is ready to be assessed in English, confusion about when to refer an
ELL, misinterpreting a child’s lack of full proficiency as low IQ or learning
disabilities, and an overreliance on test scores, with little consideration given
to other factors that might affect a student’s performance. We also describe
prereferral strategies, the roles of the bilingual assessor and the psychologist, the decision-making process at placement conferences, and interactions with parents. All names are pseudonyms.
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND
LEARNING DISABILITIES
Although some professionals in our study seemed to know a great deal
about how to differentiate between English language acquisition and learning disabilities, many others were quite confused about this. We found a
great deal of variability across schools in how district policies were carried
out, how assessments were conducted, and how decisions were made. The
school with a kindergarten through sixth grade two-way bilingual (i.e., dual
immersion) program was different in some key ways from schools without
bilingual education.
Confusion About When to Refer
There seemed to be much confusion about the district’s rules concerning when a student could be referred for an evaluation. Although some
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2263
psychologists thought that they were not allowed to refer students who were
still at beginning levels of English proficiency, the district administrator in
charge of this process assured us that this was not the case, ‘‘No, not at all.
No, no. At every meeting, in fact, at every regional or AP [assistant principals’] meeting we have gone to, we say it. All children have access to any
categorical program.’’ At another point in the conversation, she said,
One of the issues in terms of ESOL students is that we [in general
around the country] wait until the students become proficient in
English. But, that doesn’t happen too much in this district. We sometimes don’t really have ‘‘under referral.’’ I think that in the average,
schools over refer. That is my perception of what we have out there.
Yet this message was not getting to at least some of the district’s psychologists. One stated emphatically, ‘‘The district will not allow psychological
testing of young children at ESOL levels 1 and 2.’’ At another school, the
psychologist explained during Oscar’s (the student’s) meeting, ‘‘He can’t be
referred anyway until he’s ESOL level 4 . . . his ESOL level is too low; they
won’t accept it.’’ Another psychologist told us, ‘‘The ESOL ones and twos
have to be very obvious to be referred. The preference is that the child be in
ESOL two semesters to acquire the language and culture, becoming assimilated to the new culture.’’
Personnel at a school with a dual immersion program expressed the
opinion that it is easier to identify students with learning disabilities when
they are in a bilingual program such as theirs ‘‘because you can tell if they
are having difficulties in Spanish, their native language, as well as in English. You can determine if the child’s difficulty is due to confusion learning a
new language, or something broader that is apparent in both languages.’’
In this school, students were frequently referred as early as kindergarten.
Not Knowing When a Child is Ready to be Assessed in English
The written guidelines in this district specified that students generally take
about 7 years to develop English proficiency to the extent that they are
ready to be evaluated in only English (based on Cummins, 1984). Even
students who are considered to be at ESOL level 5 and have been exited
from ESOL services are supposed to be monitored for 2 years and evaluated by a bilingual assessor before they are formally evaluated by a psychologist. Yet not everyone believed that it really took 7 years, and these
guidelines did not seem to be followed in practice. For example, Reina’s IQ
score was determined to be 51, using the WISC-III, yet she spoke Spanish
as her first language and her mother only spoke Spanish. Because she had
2264
Teachers College Record
just exited from ESOL, all her testing was done in English, and no mention
was made of her not being a native speaker at her placement conference.
When one bilingual psychologist was asked how long she thought it took
to get to the point where it was ‘‘safe’’ to test a child only in English, she
quickly responded, ‘‘seven years’’ (the expected response according to district policies). But then she went on to say,
But, actually, actually they are proficient before seven years. If they
started here and have been here since kindergarten and they have heard
the language every day they should be able to learn it like any other
student. So, even though they switch [to using their native language] at
home, it doesn’t matter. You see, I was born in [a Spanish-speaking
country] but I went to an American school all of my life. So, I know what
it is like. I’ve been through the experience, so I expect more of them.
Another way that this played out was that in some cases there seemed to be
an overreliance on the teacher’s or parent’s opinions about a student’s
English proficiency. For example, at Hamid’s CST meeting, the mother told
the committee that he understood more English than Arabic. The psychologist asked if he might be experiencing language interference because he
was taught in Arabic first, and suggested that he needed a bilingual assessment. The assistant principal reminded him, ‘‘But the mother said the child
is better in English than Arabic.’’ The psychologist responded, ‘‘Yes, but the
problem could be that he’s caught between the two languages, and possibly
below in both.’’ Hamid had been back and forth between the United States
and his native country, and he had attended kindergarten in his homeland.
In this case, the psychologist seemed to have the clearer understanding of
language issues, and he prevailed.
At Rex’s placement conference, the staffing specialist said to the teacher,
‘‘I see he’s ESOL level 4. Do you think that has a bearing on this?’’ The
teacher responded, ‘‘No, he speaks English well.’’ Although Rex had been
tested in both English and Spanish, only English scores were shared and
included in the psychologist’s written report, and no further mention was
made of the possible influence of language on Rex’s IQ score of 74.
On the other hand, at some meetings, language issues were discussed
extensively. At Elfigo’s meeting, the team noted that his low comprehension,
lack of retention, and poor oral communication could be due to his limited
English proficiency, ‘‘His BICS [basic interpersonal communication skills] are
fine but he doesn’t have CALP [cognitive academic language proficiency].’’
The psychologist explained, ‘‘Even at ESOL 4, the CALP is still low.’’
A similar conversation took place at Pablo’s CST meeting: ‘‘He forgets
information and his concentration is weak. He has problems with attention,
decoding, retrieving information. . . . He’s more comfortable in Spanish. He
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2265
lacks English vocabulary.’’ The mother interjected, ‘‘To me it seems he
speaks English well.’’ The counselor then explained that the social level of
English may not be the same as the academic level. The discussion then
shifted to questioning how the student’s reading skills compared with those
of other students at his ESOL level (as a way of determining if he might
have a disability). The psychologist concluded, ‘‘So he has more of a reading
problem than other ESOL 3s,’’ and the decision was made to refer him for
an evaluation.
At Carlos’s meeting, the psychologist was thorough in his questioning
regarding the student’s relative strengths in English and Spanish. He
seemed to adequately consider language issues, as can be seen in this exchange between the psychologist and the classroom teacher:
Teacher: His vocabulary is very limited.
Psychologist: If he doesn’t have the vocabulary, it could be associated
with second language acquisition.
Teacher: I don’t think his limited vocabulary is because of his English.
Psychologist: What does the Spanish teacher think?
Teacher: He has a D in Spanish. I think his vocabulary is limited
because of lack of experience and attention. He’s easily distracted.
Psychologist: You’ve heard him speak in both languages?
Teacher: Yes, he prefers English.
Psychologist: Could you compare his English to his Spanish?
Teacher: In a social situation, he spontaneously uses English, even in
response to peers.
The psychologist said that Carlos would need a bilingual assessment, ‘‘We
have to have it done for ESOL levels 4 and 5.’’ He explained, ‘‘At level 3,
you start forgetting the native language so the child may have poor vocabulary in both languages, so it’s hard to tell if it’s a learning disability.
Then the tests that are in Spanish are based on norms for monolinguals and
these kids are not. So you just have to do the best you can. Only in a full
bilingual program is the kid likely to adequately maintain both languages.’’
Misinterpreting a Lack of Full Proficiency in English as Low IQ or Learning
Disabilities
Our primary concern in many of the meetings we observed was that there
was a lack of consideration given to language issues. This seemed to be due
to the possible misinterpretation by those involved that students’ difficulties
were attributed to intrinsic deficits of some kind rather than a lack of full
English proficiency. It seemed that some psychologists, staffing specialists,
2266
Teachers College Record
administrators, and others did not have enough of an understanding of the
language acquisition process and confused language acquisition for processing disorders, low intelligence, problems with attention, or learning
disabilities. We heard students described as having poor auditory memory
or not able to follow directions, for example, without any mention of
whether this could be related to the language acquisition process even
though these characteristics are typical of students acquiring a new language. The following three students exemplified this pattern.
Arturo’s teacher reported that he did not follow directions and did not
participate in discussions, and she had to spend a lot of time with him to
make sure he understood. She lamented, ‘‘He’s not independent.’’ There
was no mention of his ESOL level or language issues as a possible explanation for these factors.
Though James was at ESOL level 1, his teacher referred him for academic concerns, noting, ‘‘My real concern is that when I give a direction [in
English] he gives me a blank look, like he doesn’t understand. He’s lost.’’
She also noted that he had difficulty paying attention. In this case, the
assistant principal did note that ‘‘a lot of children in ESOL have these
difficulties.’’ The teacher responded by saying, ‘‘But I think it’s more than
that. It’s more a matter of higher level thinking.’’ This was accepted by the
team and they proceeded to refer the student for an evaluation. They did
not discuss his native language skills and whether he exhibited these same
problems in Haitian Creole.
Paul was found to have learning disabilities by the team, but although he
was ESOL level 4, there was no mention of language proficiency in the
psychologist’s report and no discussion of language proficiency at his
placement conference. He was determined, however, to have ‘‘auditory
processing deficits’’ through English-language testing. Notably, his achievement scores were actually higher than his IQ score.
Similarly, it sometimes seemed that not enough attention was given to
students’ skills in their native language. In some meetings, this was not
addressed at all. In the following example, it did come up, but Oscar’s
teacher was not prepared. When asked what the Spanish teacher thought of
Oscar’s academic skills, she said that she did not speak with her. The team
decided to send for the Spanish teacher, who reported, ‘‘He is functioning
well. He’s not behind in reading . . . He’s quiet.’’ The classroom teacher
said, ‘‘I wasn’t aware he was that good in Spanish.’’
Overreliance on Test Scores
It was interesting to note how much confidence school personnel seemed to
have in the ability of the psychological evaluation to ‘‘diagnose disabilities.’’
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2267
We heard this view expressed frequently. One counselor said, ‘‘I believe
that the teachers see problem areas, and it’s the psychologist’s position to
actually use the various tests available and determine whether the student
goes into a special education program.’’
This overconfidence in test scores meant that little consideration was
given to other factors that might provide alternative explanations for students’ behaviors, such as teacher or environmental factors. None of the
CST conferences we observed seemed to take into account the ecology of
the classroom from which a child was being referred. The assumption
seemed to be that the problem was within the child, not in the environment.
Observations by someone other than the classroom teacher were not conducted.
However, for many of the CST meetings and placement conferences we
observed, we, the researchers, had observed students in their classrooms.
This meant that we knew something about the instructional and management styles of the referring teachers. In Claude’s case, for example, the
teacher told the CST that she used ‘‘visuals, manipulatives, and other ESOL
techniques. . . . But he doesn’t retain it. He can’t transfer it to do it on his
own.’’ This was taken at face value by committee members. Yet in our
several observations in this classroom (10 altogether), we were struck by the
absence of ESOL strategies even though most of the students were at very
beginning levels of English acquisition (ESOL levels 1 and 2). The teacher
was very verbal and only rarely used any kind of visual display.
Psychologists very rarely observed the students they tested in their classrooms before conducting an evaluation. When asked about observations,
one psychologist said, ‘‘I make time for the ones that have behavior problems . . . But no, with the other ones, only if I feel that I need to. The whole
morning with them [testing] gives you a good idea, you know it does. And
you rely on the teacher’s comments and you rely on your notes.’’
PREREFERRAL STRATEGIES
Prereferral intervention or alternative strategies are supposed to be central
part of the CST process. However, of the 11 first CST meetings we observed
for ELL students, strategies were recommend only twice, and both of these
students were placed on strategies at the same time that they were referred
for a formal evaluation. Little attention was given to coming up with meaningful strategies or trying to match strategies to students’ documented
problem areas. Claude’s teacher was told to just ‘‘pick the most basic alternative strategies on the list.’’ It was suggested to Monica’s teacher that
she use preferential seating, positive reinforcement, and redirection as
strategies. Yet the researcher noted that this was what the teacher had just
said she already did. Six students were referred immediately for a formal
2268
Teachers College Record
evaluation at their first CST meetings, without the provision of any prereferral strategies.
At the second CST meetings and placement conferences we attended,
there was rarely any follow-up to see how the strategies that presumably had
been suggested in the first meeting were working. We noted no discussion
of strategies at either Reina’s CST meeting or placement conference, or
Paul’s CST meeting or placement conference, nor were there any discussions of strategies at Jean’s, Ben’s, Lucio’s, or Arturo’s placement conferences. The one exception was Carlos’ second CST meeting. The researcher
noted, ‘‘I look at a form the psychologist is holding out to me. It has a list of
alternative strategies: Move around room, touch base with student. Provide
visuals. Reduce distractions. Present both auditory and visual cues.’’
During our classroom observation, we sometimes observed prereferral
strategies being implemented. For example, in one second-grade classroom, we noted that one boy about whom the teachers were concerned
(and who eventually was identified with learning disabilities) was paired
with another student who provided assistance and seemed to be very helpful. The teacher explained to us that this was a prereferral strategy.
ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGIST
Of everyone involved in the entire special education referral and placement
process, the psychologist was clearly the person with the most authority and
decision-making power. Typically the psychologist became involved when a
child’s case was discussed at the second CST meeting, and a decision was
made whether to refer the child for a psychological evaluation. If the decision is to test the child, the case was officially ‘‘opened.’’ At that point, the
psychologist conducted the entire evaluation himself or herself. Typically
the psychologist met the parent for the first time at the second CST meeting
and saw the parent again at the placement conference, but did not otherwise interact with the parent.
Tests Used
The WISC III, in both English and Spanish, seemed to be the intelligence
test of choice. Alternative IQ tests included the K-ABC, the UNIT (a nonverbal test), or the Differential Ability Scales, a test considered fairer with
ELLs. Even though psychologists seemed to know that the validity of the
WISC III with ELLs was questionable, many still preferred it over other
tests. One psychologist explained,
You would try to use a nonverbal type of test to get a score that is not
decreased by the language. But I like to use the WISC III anyway
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2269
because, even though later I have to give an extra test, I want to look
at the verbal anyway. My favorite is the WISC III; that is my favorite
because you want to look at how the child does on both scales. Even if
I’m not going to use the verbal IQ and I’m going to write in my report
that I’m disregarding it, or I have to give another test just to make
sure that I’m getting a more valid IQ, I prefer to start with the WISC
III.
Other tests included the Woodcock Johnson test in English and the Baterı́a
Woodcock Muñoz in Spanish, and the Bender and the Visual Motor Integration Test (VMI).
ROLE OF BILINGUAL ASSESSOR
We asked several professionals to explain the role of the bilingual assessor
to us. An assistant principal at a bilingual school explained,
At the first CST if the child is an ESOL 3 or 4, he is referred to the
bilingual assessor. The students who are in ESOL 5 and are at the
32nd percentile in reading or lower and have been exited from the
program for less than 2 years are also evaluated. There is a parent
permission form the parent needs to sign that is sent to the bilingual
assessor. The report from the bilingual assessor is supposed to be
completed before the second CST meeting. If we do not have the
report from the bilingual assessor then the psychologist isn’t going to
sign, even though it is a clear-cut case, even though we have a Spanish
teacher here at the school who says the child isn’t doing well in their
language or whatever, they cannot.
Psychologists told us that before they do their testing, they look at the
recommendation from the bilingual assessor to see if he or she believes that
there are other factors besides language affecting the child’s progress. A
staffing specialist described the bilingual assessor’s role as ‘‘helping the
psychologist determine whether that student has learned the academic
language of English or just the social language.’’
A bilingual assessor described her role this way:
We look at the child and try to determine if the child’s difficulties are
because of the language, and try to help out with recommendations,
looking at the student’s strengths and weakness in both languages. We
try to see if we can find out what the issue is and then give recommendations to the school and let them determine if they want to continue with the process or not. They refer the children to us because
2270
Teachers College Record
apparently they are having some difficulty in the classroom. Our students are ESOL students that are 3, 4, and 5s; we don’t usually test 1
and 2s because they have to be tested in their home language, the
psychologist tests them basically monolingual.
Another bilingual assessor explained how challenging the process is:
My role as a bilingual assessor is to determine if the child’s difficulties
are due to [learning a second] language or due to other factors.
Sometimes it might be something I don’t know. Sometimes I don’t
have all of the facts in front of me. Sometimes the discrepancy is so
thin. Maybe if they give him more time, he’ll make it. Maybe we will
give him two years and with more time we’ll see a change. Maybe
sometimes we know that two years will not help. Sometimes it is just
kind of struggle to see.
In our observations of CST meetings and placement conferences, we frequently heard the bilingual assessor mentioned when a referral was being
made: Of the 13 first and second CST meetings we observed, a bilingual
assessment was recommended six times. But we did not hear about the
results of these assessments in the placement conferences we attended.
Notably, the bilingual assessor was never present.
Although the school personnel quoted above seemed quite clear about
the role of the bilingual assessor, others seemed quite confused. At one
school, the assistant principal who was in charge of the referral process did
not seem to know the difference between the bilingual assessor and the
bilingual psychologist, referring to them interchangeably. When asked for
the name of the bilingual assessor, she provided the name of the psychologist instead. Other personnel also seemed confused about the role of the
bilingual assessor and the purpose of testing. At a CST meeting at another
school, the researcher asked the assistant principal to clarify the role of the
bilingual assessor. The following is from our field notes:
The assistant principal explains that the bilingual assessor tests the
child’s academic skills in Creole, to see if he has learned them in his
native language. She explains this for a couple of minutes, then pauses
and looks a bit doubtful. Then she turns to the team members and
comments that maybe that’s not right since he may not have learned
those things in Creole yet. They nod, and the conversation drifts off.
This comment seems particularly problematic when one considers that the
student being tested had never been taught academics in Creole.
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2271
Decision Making
Decisions seem to have been made prior to the placement conferences.
When psychologists were asked how decisions are made and who makes
them, they emphasized that it is a team decision but also acknowledged that
they have a lot of influence over the outcome. One psychologist explained,
I know my staffing specialist very well now. I test; I write my report; I write
my recommendations and I give it to the staffing specialist. If I want
something, I know it is a team decision, but I can tell her, ‘‘look this is
my feeling,’’ even with a note. She has a report, but she also has a note,
‘‘this is the way I feel, let me know.’’ Many times she’ll come and say,
‘‘What do you want me to do with this, what do you think?’’ Or, ‘‘This
is my opinion, I think we should go this way instead of that.’’ But we
discuss it and we come to a decision. And we discuss it prior to the meeting
just to make sure we are providing the best for the child. And once we have
a unified front for the parents, we can bring them in just so they know what
is going on.
INTERACTIONS WITH PARENTS
We were told that ‘‘the parent is involved from the beginning, even before
the student is referred.’’ However, for the most part, we observed little
evidence of strong parental involvement in the special education referral
process. We noted several problems, including negativity, a lack of consistent translation services, ignoring parents, lack of professionalism, and insensitivity.
Negative Comments About Families
We noticed a range of interactions across schools, and even within schools in
which some individual CST and multidisciplinary team members would
behave very appropriately with parents, and others inappropriately. Yet,
overall, we were appalled by the negativity we witnessed. School personnel
often made derogatory remarks about parents and spoke of them in demeaning ways. For example, Jacques’s CST meeting had to be rescheduled
because the mother did not attend even though she had signed a form
indicating she would be there. The teacher told the researcher that she had
reminded the mother, adding,
All I can ever get out of her is ‘‘yes teacher, yes teacher.’’ She mimicked
the mother, using a silly tone of voice. She confided with a smirk that
she makes her phone calls to parents from home where she cannot be
2272
Teachers College Record
overheard so that she can be ‘‘nasty’’ if necessary. Then if anyone
comes to the school to complain, there are no witnesses to the conversation. She says this with a little laugh.
That several school personnel would make disparaging remarks about parents in front of us made us wonder what they would say in our absence. For
example, in different settings, we heard parents referred to as ‘‘crazy,’’
‘‘retarded,’’ or ‘‘unreliable.’’ Such labels would serve as justification of not
following established procedures for conducting meetings. For example,
Reina’s CST meeting lasted only 5 minutes. When the researcher asked
about this, she was told that the mother was ‘‘retarded, and wouldn’t have
understood anyway.’’
Inadequate or Sporadic Translation Services
Despite the many Spanish and Haitian Creole speakers in this region, the
district provided translations of some, but not all, official documents.
Sometimes even these were not available to parents. At both Laura’s and
Reina’s meetings, parents did not speak English, but all forms were only in
English, and only brief explanations were provided to the parents. When
Reina’s mother asked for her daughter’s test results in Spanish (this request
was from the mother whom the school considered ‘‘retarded’’), she was told
by the staffing specialist that this was not an option: ‘‘Our school system has
some 80 different languages. We can’t possibly provide translation for
everyone.’’ Sometimes parents were asked to sign forms without being able
to read them, and without an explanation.
Translations of CST and placement conferences generally were provided
by the classroom teachers who were present, the counselor, or, at some
schools, the community involvement specialist. In most schools, it was not
difficult to find a Spanish interpreter, but interpreters for Haitian Creole
were much harder to come by; occasionally, no one was available to translate.
From what we could surmise, those who translated had not received any
special training in how to translate the results of a psychological evaluation.
In some cases, interpreters should have been provided but were not. In
other cases, even when an interpreter was present, not all the dialogue was
translated. The worst examples of this were in meetings with Haitian parents who seemed reluctant to acknowledge that they needed an interpreter.
Although this reluctance was something that was commonly acknowledged
by school personnel who worked with Haitian populations, school teams
would often go ahead without an interpreter. The importance of an interpreter would particularly become evident whenever the language of the
team became formal or academic—which, of course, it often did. For
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2273
example, Ben’s father was asked if he had any siblings, to which he replied
no. A minute later he talked about the child’s sister helping with homework.
Translations were sporadic at Lucio’s placement conference. And at James’s
CST meeting, we were shocked to see the Creole-speaking interpreter, a
counselor, walk in and out of the meeting in response to phone calls or on
errands. When this occurred, the conversation proceeded in English without the interpreter:
The mother starts saying something in Creole to the interpreter, and
as she talks the teacher continues with her comments, directing them
to the assistant principal (AP). The phone rings and the counselor
answers it. She puts down the phone and says she has to go to see
about something. The AP tells her to go ahead, saying, ‘‘We’ll wait for
you.’’
The counselor/interpreter leaves, and the AP and teacher promptly
continue the conversation.
The mother is listening to them and nodding and the AP says, ‘‘Do
you understand? Do you want us to wait?’’
The mother does not answer the latter question, but says, in very
halting English, ‘‘Sometime he write it like this,’’ making a motion with
her hand. I have no idea what she is trying to say.
The interpreter returns and starts translating. . . . Then the teacher
and the counselor get up and go to look for a form.
[Observer’s comment: I am so dismayed at the coming and going of
people and in particular of the interpreter. In the absence of the interpreter, it is clear that communication between this mother and the
school is very difficult and could easily be misunderstood.]
Ignoring and Unprofessionalism
In several cases, school personnel did not acknowledge parents’ questions
or comments, but instead moved on to the next point. Sometimes this
seemed to invoke no reaction, but in other cases, parents seemed to react
negatively—withdrawing and no longer adding to the dialogue, or becoming agitated.
In other cases, we witnessed conversations in front of parents as if they
were not there. This happened at Marcos’s meeting, with the principal and
teacher engaging in side conversations in front of the parent, assuming she
could not understand. Sometimes these conversations were related to the
child, and sometimes they were not. At Lucio’s placement conference, the
AP said, ‘‘We can’t serve him here,’’ and the staffing specialist retorted, ‘‘Yes
you can, you just don’t, that’s all.’’
2274
Teachers College Record
Insensitivity
In some cases, school personnel seemed quite insensitive in their interactions with parents. At Joseph’s CST meeting, for example, the teacher was
quite rude toward the father, saying in a loud voice that he must make
Joseph do his homework. She demanded that the translator tell the father
that Joseph’s homework must be done that night. The translator reminded
her that the family’s roof had just blown off their house, and therefore the
child probably would not be able to complete the work. At this, the teacher
directed the translator to tell the father that ‘‘homework is important like
the roof,’’ but the translator explained that he would not say this, that the
father understood, and that to say this would be belittling.
Responding to Parents’ Schedules
Another issue was school personnel failing to understand the hardships
described by parents. For example, when asked when the committee could
reconvene, a Haitian single father explained, in halting but clear English,
his very complicated schedule by which he worked at one job until 2 p.m.
and had to be at the next job at 3 p.m. His only days off were every other
Wednesday, and he would certainly come then. Just a few minutes later, a
team member told him that he would need to come in on a Monday at 1:00
p.m. The father repeated his schedule, and the assistant principal then
asked him if he could come in between his two jobs. This entire conversation transpired while the interpreter was out of the room.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In principle, the CST process is intended to provide a network of support
for children and prevent inappropriate referrals. Yet in practice, it seemed
that only cursory attention was given to prereferral strategies and that most
students were pushed toward testing based on an assumption that poor
academic performance or behavioral difficulties had their origin within the
child and indicated a need for special education. We found that there was
tremendous variation between what was written on a checklist and the
quality of what actually transpired during a meeting. In actual practice,
these differences were influenced by the intentions, knowledge, skills, and
commitment of CST or multidisciplinary team members. All the factors we
have described point to aspects of the process that should be improved.
As in Mehan et al.’s (1986) and Ysseldyke et al.’s (1982) groundbreaking studies about 20 years ago, we found that decisions about students’
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2275
disabilities and preferred placements were made before multidisciplinary
team meetings took place and were typically based on other factors than test
data and strict eligibility criteria. Psychologists and staffing specialists
viewed these meetings as a place to inform parents of their decisions rather
than actively involve them in the decision-making process. And as in other
investigations of CST and multidisciplinary team meetings (Frankenberger
& Harper, 1988; Knoff, 1983; Mehan et al.), we found that psychologists
had too much control over evaluations and placement decisions. In this
district, they alone completed the entire battery of both psychological and
academic tests used to make eligibility decisions.
In addition, psychologists rarely, if ever, saw children prior to evaluating
them. Though they told us that they would have liked to spend more time
observing children referred to them, they simply did not have the time.
Given this constraint, it would seem reasonable to expect another team
member to be given the explicit responsibility of observing the child in his
or her classroom prior to settling on an evaluation, or as part of an assessment. We believe that it is imperative for greater consideration to be given
to classroom ecologies and other contextual features at each stage of the
referral process. Researchers have repeatedly called for research on the
contextual elements that may contribute to children’s underachievement
(Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Keogh, 1998; Keogh & Speece, 1996; Rueda, Artiles,
Salazar, & Higareda, 2002).
One way to improve the dynamics of prereferral teams would be to
ensure that the members of the team are primarily general education
teachers and parents, with the principal goal of generating classroom interventions. The presence of school psychologists, special educators, and
administrators on a prereferral team can alter the participation of general
education teachers, who may feel intimidated (Trailor, 1982). The referral
or intervention outcome is usually the result of the philosophy or belief
system of the individuals involved, the ‘‘power’’ the teachers perceive different individuals to have, and the degree to which the teachers are in
agreement and comfortable with the interventions suggested (anonymous
reviewer). The Teacher Assistance Team model (Chalfant & Pysh, 1989)
may be more appropriate than the more special education-oriented CST
model for this purpose (Ortiz, 2002).
Prereferral or alternative strategies clearly were not given the serious
attention they warrant. We recommend that professionals take this aspect of
the process more seriously, with a focus on collaborative problem solving,
and develop specific instructional objectives and a plan for each child
brought to the prereferral team. Fewer ELLs would need to be referred for
special education if schools effectively responded to their language and
learning needs within general education (Ortiz, 2002). Recommended
strategies should be varied and provide the child with additional assistance
2276
Teachers College Record
(e.g., early intervention programs in reading and behavior). The person(s)
responsible for addressing these objectives and providing support should
be clearly specified, as well as a time frame for reevaluating progress. Most
important, prereferral problem-solving must be embedded in a school
context that is working toward a culturally responsive learning environment (e.g., Garcia & Ortiz, 2004; Ortiz, 2002). Garcia and Ortiz (1988,
2004) developed a flowchart to guide practitioners through this decisionmaking process. The flowchart and associated list of guiding questions help
school personnel evaluate whether students have been provided with
meaningful, appropriate prereferral strategies and adequate opportunities
to learn across time and settings.
Response to intervention (RTI) models can provide a vehicle for supporting students with meaningful prereferral strategies, though in a somewhat different format than before. With the reauthorization of IDEA (2004)
and the establishment of multitiered RTI models, the way that students are
targeted for more intensive instruction and the support they receive are
changing. RTI models include regular progress monitoring of all students
so that those who are not making adequate progress are identified early and
moved to the second tier of a multitiered model in which they receive early
interventions in their areas of weakness. This may involve one-on-one tutoring or participating in one or more services provided by Title 1 funds
(Ortiz, 2002). For those students who adequately respond to the interventions, a process should be in place to maintain and monitor academic gains.
For ELLs who do not adequately respond to intensive supplemental instruction, this second tier can serve as the gatekeeper for a possible referral
to special education. We suggest adding a problem-solving Teacher Assistance Team to the RTI process at this point (Klingner & Bianco, 2006). When
applied in this way, the RTI model can help address the challenging question of when ELLs should be referred for a special education evaluation.
Much greater attention needs to be given to language issues. Although in
this district, bilingual students are assessed by a bilingual assessor prior to
being tested by a psychologist, the bilingual assessor does not attend CST or
multidisciplinary team meetings. Like Salend and Salinas (2003), we recommend diversifying prereferral and multidisciplinary teams and making
sure someone is present who is knowledgeable about language issues. This
language specialist can share valuable insights about second language acquisition issues and how they relate to the academic performance of ELLs
(Roache, Shore, Gouleta, & de Obaldia Butkevich, 2003), can point out
when language could be a confounding factor when explaining children’s
difficulties, and can model effective instructional strategies for the classroom teachers (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988, 2004). In addition, language information must be included in psychologists’ reports and in cautionary notes
about interpreting students’ standardized test scores (if they are used). Such
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2277
thoughtful practice was notable in one school, where evaluation reports by
the psychologist consistently included caveats regarding the likelihood that
the test might underestimate children’s capacities. Though this district has
invested a great deal of time and money in training personnel about the
needs of ELLs, the confounding influences of second language acquisition
are still not adequately understood.
We are very concerned about the pervasive negative attitude toward
parents and the lack of effort to discover and build on family strengths. At
times, school personnel were barely able to conceal a distinct contempt,
which seemed to be based on a combination of racial and socioeconomic
stereotyping, along with the tendency to base a view of a family on one piece
of negative information. This tendency was observed in teams of various
ethnicities, with ethnic minority school personnel being just as likely as their
White counterparts to denigrate families. Though there were notable exceptions to this pattern, in general, parents were marginalized and their
input undervalued. In addition, this negativity toward parents actually put
some children at greater risk of special education placement. When this is
considered in light of the disproportionate representation of minorities, we
see cause for serious concern (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Donovan & Cross,
2002). The child study process is intended to provide a period of support for children, during which teachers and parents work together toward
the child’s improvement. Of course, this process should be in place even
before the call for a referral. Our data show not only that that the pervasive
negativity drastically reduced the possibility of parent participation, but also
that negative views of the parents could actually have a direct influence on
the outcomes for some children. These findings exacerbate the already
well-established information that ethnic minority families of low socioeconomic status tend to be excluded from participation (Harry, 1992; Harry
et al., 1995).
Thus, we recommend that districts provide additional professional development for everyone involved in the referral and decision-making process. Not only should participants learn more about second language
acquisition and cognitive development (Fletcher & Navarrete, 2003; Salend
& Salinas, 2003), they also would benefit from guidance in how best to
communicate and interact with parents (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). Yet
until we as educators change our focus from one of finding and naming
deficits within children to one of self-examination and asking ourselves
how we can better instruct and support all children, it is likely that inappropriate practices will continue. It appears that not much has changed in the
last 20 years.
This research was conducted with support from the United States Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs, Grant No. H324C980165.
2278
Teachers College Record
Notes
1 The Child Study Team is somewhat different than another type of school-based team,
the Teacher Assistance Team (Chalfant & Pysh, 1989; Chalfant, Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979), which
is composed predominantly of classroom teachers.
2 Although we use the term English language learners (ELLs), district personnel referred to
students who were in the process of acquiring English as a new or additional language as LEP
(limited English proficient) or ESOL (referring to the name of a program, ‘‘English for speakers
of other languages’’).
3 P. L. 94-142 refers to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which was passed
in 1975 and the precursor to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
References
Abelson, M. A., & Woodman, R. W. (1983). Review of research on team effectiveness: Implications for teams in schools. School Psychology Review, 12, 125–136.
Algozzine, B., Christenson, S., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). Probabilities associated with the referral
to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 19–23.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National
Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Testing linguistic minorities. Standards for
educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27, 410–437.
Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Palmer, J. (2004). Culturally diverse students in special education:
Legacies and prospects. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on
multicultural education (2nd edn., pp. 716–735). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brey, N. M., Coleman, J.M, & Gotts, G. A. (1981). The inter-disciplinary team: Challenges to
effective functioning. Teacher Education and Special Education, 4, 44–49.
Carrasquillo, A. L., & Rodriguez, J. (1997). Hispanic limited English-proficient students
with disabilities: A case study example. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8,
167–174.
Chalfant, J., & Pysh, M. (1989). Teacher Assistance Teams: Five descriptive studies on 96 teams.
Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 49–58.
Chalfant, J., Pysh, M., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher Assistance Teams: A model for withinbuilding problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2(3), 85–96.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San
Diego, CA: College Hill.
Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic-minority students: Knowledge gaps
and regulations. Exceptional Children, 56, 145–152.
Figueroa, R. A. (1990). Assessment of linguistic minority group children. In C. R. Reynolds &
R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children, Vol. 1:
Intelligence and achievement (pp. 671–696). New York: Guilford Press.
Fletcher, T. V., & Navarrete, L. A. (2003). Learning disabilities or difference: A critical look
at the issues associated with the misidentification and placement of Hispanic students in
special education programs. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(4), 37–46.
Flugum, K. R., & Reschly, D. J. (1994). Prereferral interventions: Quality indices and outcomes.
Journal of School Psychology, 32, 1–14.
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2279
Frankenberger, W., & Harper, J. (1988). Perceived importance of contributions made by
professionals participating on multidisciplinary evaluation teams. Mental Retardation and
Learning Disability Bulletin, 16(2), 29–35.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness to-intervention:
Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority students to
special education (New Focus Series No. 5). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for
Bilingual Education.
Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2004). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and
linguistically responsive prereferral interventions. Denver, CO: National Center for Culturally
Responsive Education Systems (NCCRESt).
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Gonzalez, V., Brusca-Vega, R., & Yawkey, T. (1997). Assessment and instruction of culturally and
linguistically diverse students. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B., Wishner, J., & Yoshida, R. K. (1990). Final report for year III of
the consulting teacher program. Report submitted to New York State Education Department,
Office for Children with Handicapping Conditions.
Gutkin, T. B., & Nemeth, C. (1997). Selected factors impacting decision making in prereferral
intervention and other school-based teams: Exploring the intersection between school and
social psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 195–216.
Harry, B. (1992). An ethnographic study of cross-cultural communication with Puerto Rican
families in the special education system. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 471–494.
Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication vs. compliance: A three-year
study of the evolution of African American parents’ participation in special education.
Exceptional Children, 61, 364–377.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harry, B., Sturges, K., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Qualitative data analysis: Mapping the process.
Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3–13.
Kaiser, S. M., & Woodman, R. W. (1985). Multidisciplinary teams and group decision-making
techniques: Possible solutions to decision-making problems. School Psychology Review, 14,
457–470.
Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Baltimore: Brookes.
Keogh, B. K. (1998). Classrooms as well as students deserve study. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 313–314, 349.
Keogh, B. K., & Speece, D. L. (1996). Learning disabilities within the context of schooling. In
D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications of inclusion of
children with learning disabilities (pp. 1–14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klingner, J., & Bianco, M. (2006). What is special about special education for culturally and
linguistically diverse students with disabilities? In B. Cook & B. Schirmer (Eds.), What is
special about special education? (pp. 37–53). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention
models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108–117.
Knoff, H. M. (1983). Investigating the disproportionate influence and status of multidisciplinary child study teams. Exceptional Children, 49, 367–370.
Langdon, H. W. (1989). Language disorder or language difference? Assessing the language
skills of Hispanic students. Exceptional Children, 56, 160–167.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in education research
(2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
2280
Teachers College Record
Mehan, H. (1991). The schools’ work of sorting students. In D. Zimmerman & D. Boden (Eds.),
Talk and social structure (pp. 71–90). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Mehan, H., Hartwick, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped: Decision-making in
students’ educational careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Moore, K. J., Fifield, M. B., Spira, D. A., & Scarlato, M. (1989). Child study team decision
making in special education: Improving the process. Remedial and Special Education, 10,
50–58.
Ochoa, S. H., Rivera, B. D., & Powell, M. P. (1997). Factors used to comply with the exclusionary clause with bilingual and limited-English-proficient pupils: Initial guidelines. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 161–167.
Oller, J. W., Jr. (1991). Language testing research: Lessons applied to LEP students and programs. In Proceedings of the first research symposium on limited English proficient students’ issues:
Focus on evaluation and measurement: Vol. 2 (pp. 42–123). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs.
Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321–332.
Ortiz, A. A. (2002). Prevention of school failure and early intervention for English language
learners. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners with special education
needs: Identification, placement, and instruction (pp. 31–48). Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Ortiz, A. A., & Yates, J. R. (2001). A framework for serving English language learners with
disabilities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 14, 72–80.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (1982). Special education placement decisions made by teams and individuals:
A cross-cultural perspective. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 335–340.
Roache, M., Shore, J., Gouleta, E., & de Obaldia Butkevich, E. (2003). An investigation of
collaboration among school professionals serving culturally and linguistically diverse students with exceptionalities. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 117–132.
Rock, M. L., & Zigmond, N. (2001). Intervention assistance: Is it substance or symbolism?
Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 153–161.
Rueda, R., Artiles, A. J., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2002). An analysis of special education as a
response to the diminished academic achievement of Chicano/Latino students: An update.
In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.,
pp. 310–332). London: Routledge Falmer.
Salend, S. J., & Salinas, A. (2003). Language differences or learning difficulties: The work of
the multidisciplinary team. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 36–43.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trailor, C. B. (1982). Role clarification and participation in child study teams. Exceptional
Children, 48, 529–530.
Trueba, H. T. (1989). Raising silent voices: Educating the linguistic minorities for the 21st century. New
York: Newbury House.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1986). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: A special
partnership. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to
instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice,
18, 137–146.
Wolcott, H. F. (1995). The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Yoshida, R. K. (1980). Multidisciplinary decision-making in special education: A review of
issues. School Psychology Review, 9, 221–227.
The Special Education Referral and Decision-Making Process
2281
Ysseldyke, J. (2001). Reflections on a research career: Generalizations from 25 years of research on assessment and instructional decision making. Exceptional Children, 67, 295–309.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Richey, L., & Graden, J. (1982). Declaring students eligible for
learning disability services: Why bother with the data? Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 37–44.
JANETTE K. KLINGNER is an associate professor at the University of
Colorado at Boulder. She was a bilingual special education teacher for 10
years in California and Florida. One research focus is the disproportionate
representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special
education. In 2004, she received the American Educational Research
Association’s Early Career Award.
BETH HARRY is a professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning
at the University of Miami’s School of Education. Her teaching and research
focus on the impact of cultural diversity on education, on working with
families of children with disabilities, and on qualitative methods in educational research. Dr. Harry and Dr. Janette Klingner recently published
Why Are So Many Minority Students in Special Education? by Teachers College
Press.